What's racist then?

RicFRicF ✭✭✭

A leading lawyer has indicated that a Black Footballers Association is being suggested. Well sorry guys but isn't that just about as racist as you can get?. Separating and identifying yourself or others on the basis of colour or race. The original anti racist stance was against job adverts that specifically stated 'no blacks'. That was racist. The day we regard colour or race as irrelevant is what we should be aiming for, not by creating divisions along the lines of colour, race = them and us.

«1

Comments

  • The reason this is racist is that if there was a White Footballers Association proposed that would be totally unaccebtable - to be honest the only person I could see joining such an organisation is Rio Ferdinand.

  • it may well be racist technically but i'm unsure as to why i should be offended.

    like finding women's-only 10ks sexist. i'm sorry i just cant get worked up about it.

     

     

  • I can see your points, but given that most racism in this country is something suffered by non-white people, it seems reasonable until utopia arrives for people in minorities to organise themselves in this way. Interestingly, no one seems to recall the very sensitive Mr Ferdinand having to apologise for calling Chris Moyles 'a faggot' live on air some years ago.

  • Peter Collins wrote (see)

     but given that most racism in this country is something suffered by non-white people

    Is this actually true ?

  • Sigh.

  • During Apartheid they tried to separate blacks from whites by having one thing for whites and one for blacks. Now things have gone full circle and people think that some sort of PC apartheid is actually more beneficial than everyone being together. In Brighton there is a playgroup called Mosaic that is just for mixed race kids. WTF? the rest of us just get on with in the same group.
  • Sigh indeed Peter. I was singled out at school for being one of the 299 white kids out of 300.
  • yes bruce it is.

  • I am finding it odd that my eldest daughter has become much more aware of race since she went to uni in East London. By aware I mean that she tends to label people by their colour/genetic heritage etc. Where the rest of family just want to know her friends names and where they have come from (South London, Italy or Stoke etc) she feels we need to know they are Black, Mixed Race, Muslim etc. 

    I think we are all mixed race and colour is only useful to know if you are trying to find someone in a crowd

  • I have no more problem with a black footballers association than I have with a black police officers association, an Irish club, London Welsh rugby club, or any other association that isn't causing trouble to anyone else.

    Live and let live, in this wonderful cosmopolitan land of ours.

  • the dude abides wrote (see)

    yes bruce it is.

    I suppose it depends on your definition of racism and which particular groups are included and which aren't (ooh!! ... now theres a conundrum ... is it racist to deny a race the right to be racially abused ?)


     

  • ive no idea bruce. nobody said they weren't.

     

     

  • I believe the statement said most people are non white. You seem to be claiming that it is mostly white people who are racially abused. Can you Brucie, explain how you came to that conclusion.........sigh
  • In a country which is 90% white (or whatever the figures are) then obviously most racists will be white and so most racism will be directed at non-whites,  but at the same time it doesn't mean white people are more likely to be racist or that whites can't be the victim of racism (not that anyone said differently but I'm assuming that was the point Bruce was making).      

    Personally I don't think the problem is sufficient to warrant a breakaway black footballers union - I think it's divisive and would probably be counter productive - a group organised by pro footballers targeting racism in the game (if that's a problem) I think could be a positive thing but not something operating as an alternative to the PFA.   

  • Article 11: Freedom of Assembly and Association 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
    2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the state.
      Prima facie, black footballers have a right to associate with other black footballers within an association.  
  • Executive summary for Muttley: People can hang out together.

  • *sigh*

    No, the point I was making was that racism is not purely based on skin colour as Peter intimated.

  • Yes Peter Collins, why did you say racism was purely based on skin colour????



    The freedom of peaceful assembly is conditional on the laws of the land which does not allow racism. The OP posed the question " is this racism" ? So rather than answer the question Col you have said what we loony lefties call - stated the bloody obvious.
  • OI! it's only us do-gooders that are allowed to sigh, right!?

    you oppressed, put-open whiteys are excluded

  • Bruce C wrote (see)
    Peter Collins wrote (see)

     but given that most racism in this country is something suffered by non-white people

    Is this actually true ?

    I think that it is true that most racism in this country is suffered by non-white people. 

    Jews and other apparently white people also suffer racism, but people who are not white (and Hasidic Jews) tend to stand our more and are more obviously "not like us" to the racist element of society.

  • Sussex Runner (NLR) wrote (see)
     
    The freedom of peaceful assembly is conditional on the laws of the land which does not allow racism. The OP posed the question " is this racism" ? So rather than answer the question Col you have said what we loony lefties call - stated the bloody obvious.

    Okay, I'll answer it better then.

    The purpose of black people forming an organisation for black people won't be, in order to exclude white people. The purpose of black people forming an organisation for black people is so black people can consort with other black people. Look at motive. So it isn't racist, no.

    If white people formed a "white footballers association", on the other hand, I suggest it's probable that the actual purpose of the organisation would be to exclude black people - to discriminate - so that would be racist.

    Look at motive.

     

    I don't have any problem with black people hanging out with black people within a peaceful organisation if they want to.

  • If I become Jewish do I change my race already?
  • RicF wrote (see)

    A leading lawyer has indicated that a Black Footballers Association is being suggested. Well sorry guys but isn't that just about as racist as you can get?. Separating and identifying yourself or others on the basis of colour or race. The original anti racist stance was against job adverts that specifically stated 'no blacks'. That was racist. The day we regard colour or race as irrelevant is what we should be aiming for, not by creating divisions along the lines of colour, race = them and us.

    I'm not sure it's racist, in so far as it isn't defining one group as being superior/inferior to the other.  However, it certainly is divisive and, in my opinion, not helpful in terms of tackling racism.
    "The day we regard colour or race as irrelevant is what we should be aiming for, not by creating divisions along the lines of colour, race........."  Couldn't agree more.

  • PhilPubPhilPub ✭✭✭

    What popsider said.  I don't see an inherent problem with groups being set-up along racial or minority lines, if it serves a useful purpose to counteract injustice, persecution, etc.  (A support group for ex-Muslims springs to mind, but let's not go there right now, eh?)  But in this case, it does appear to be potentially divisive. 

    More to the point, without wishing to sound complacent IMO racism in football doesn't appear to be quite such an accute problem as it once was on the domestic front, and a lot of the current furore is as a result of the attitudes that still prevail in certain Eastern European countries, a problem which is probably best tackled by national football bodies rather than break-away minority groups.

  • while it does appear divisive, from what i've heard, Jason Roberts has worked extensively worked with the PFA with regard to eradicating racism from English football (on pitch and off) over a number of years and clearly hasn't been impressed.

    I doubt this new black association will come into being, but he clearly feels there is a need.

  • I think there are many issues in football. Racism is just one of them and it isn't the worst.

    What about homophobia? The disrespect towards and abuse of referees? Of female assistant referees? The vile taunting by groups of fans towards others?

    Much bigger problems IMO. 

  • i wouldn't deny that.

    perhaps there should be a Gay Footballers Association. that is for the relevant people to arrange (although the fact that officially there are no gay footballers may make that problematic). I could join just to get the ball rolling (pun noted).

    or any of the groups you mentioned.

    But the need for one minority groups to be seek independent representation shouldn't preclude others, should it?

  • Surely the footballers are rich enough to have independent representation of their own? There have access to the best legal representation against illegal racist and homophobic behavior. If it was a group who didn't have the means to protect themselves then maybe a support group would be useful.
  • Colin McLaughlin wrote (see)
    Sussex Runner (NLR) wrote (see)
     
    The freedom of peaceful assembly is conditional on the laws of the land which does not allow racism. The OP posed the question " is this racism" ? So rather than answer the question Col you have said what we loony lefties call - stated the bloody obvious.

    Okay, I'll answer it better then.

    The purpose of black people forming an organisation for black people won't be, in order to exclude white people. The purpose of black people forming an organisation for black people is so black people can consort with other black people. Look at motive. So it isn't racist, no.

    If white people formed a "white footballers association", on the other hand, I suggest it's probable that the actual purpose of the organisation would be to exclude black people - to discriminate - so that would be racist.

    Look at motive.

     

    I don't have any problem with black people hanging out with black people within a peaceful organisation if they want to.

     

    It's not a difficult concept to grasp is it? Well I didn't think it was but judging by the responses on here it is way too much for some peoples minds...

    There is nothing wrong, nothing unusual and nothing unique about the suggestion that a minority group form a group like this. Think about the  BPOA, or LGBT groups within trade unions. 

    The Kick It Out campaign is not tackling the issue and merely paying lip servive that the FA are "trying". The suggestion of this union has comeabout because of those shortfallings and is potentially the only good thing to come out of the Ferdinand?Terry spat

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.